Meta-analysis of randomized trials on the efficacy of vascular closure devices after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty

BackgroundThe aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vascular closure devices (VCDs).MethodsThis meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews.ResultsThe literature search yielded 31 prospective, randomized studies including 7,528 patients who were randomized to VCDs or manual/mechanical compression after diagnostic angiography and/or endovascular procedures. Most of these studies have excluded patients at high risk of puncture site complications. Meta-analysis showed similar results in the study groups in terms of groin hematoma, bleeding, pseudoaneurysm, and blood transfusion. Lower limb ischemia and other arterial ischemic complications (0.3% vs 0%, P = .07) as well as need of surgery for vascular complications (0.7% vs 0.4%, P = .10) were somewhat more frequent with arterial puncture closure devices. The incidence of groin infection was significantly more frequent with VCDs (0.6% vs 0.2%, P = .02). The use of VCD was uniformly associated with a significantly shorter time to hemostasis. Such differences where more evident in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas these methods were associated with similar rates of adverse events among patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography.ConclusionsThe use of VCDs is associated with a significantly shorter time to hemostasis and thus may shorten recovery. However, the use of VCDs is associated with a somewhat increased risk of infection, lower limb ischemia/arterial stenosis/device entrapment in the artery, and need of vascular surgery for arterial complications. Further studies are needed to get more conclusive results, particularly in patients at high risk of femoral puncture-related complications.